### THEATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXdS

GERALD C. URN AUSTIN 11. TEXAR

&-,orable Geo. H. Sheppard Comptrollerof PublioAacounts Austin, Texas Dear Mr. Sheppard: OpinionNo. O-2740

. Re: Authority of the Comptrollerto issue warrants in payment of claims forwhioh appropriationswere made by former Legislatures.
Your request for an opinion, above subjectmatter, is a8 follows: "1. 'This

departnent,aoting under the authority given under Art. 1035, C. C. P. issued deficiency certifioafenumber 1638 September 1.5,1931, to Iienry Clark, for his account for witness fees due him by the State of Texas, against appropriationnumber O-1104., The Forty-third Legislature, Regular Session, by S. B.No. 100,made appropliatimfor

the payment of this defiaienay oertificate, The aerzclenoy certificate, supported byvalid olaim in due form, wae presented to the Comptrollerand demand for paymentWBS made before the appropriation lapsed, or expired, The olaim was audited by the JointAuditing Committee,as provided in saidAppropriation Act. Under the then interpretationof the law the olaim wae rejeoted and no warrant issued in payment of this defioienoy oertificate. "Subsequent rulings of the Attorney General and holdings of the courts show that the Comptrollerwas in error in not issuingwarrant in Dayment'ofthe certifioateat the time it was presented.
"mere is yet a balanoe in the appropriation sufficient to pay the amount of this certificate. "1s the Comptrollerauthorizedto issue warrant against appropriation o-1104, at this time, in payment of this oertificate?
“2. We have another situation in which the defioienoy certifioate issued and ma, delivered to the ormer. Subsequentlythe a8ppropriationwas made for payment of the oertifiaate,but the oertificatewas not presented for paymentuntil after two years from the close oflthe fisoal year which the appropriation for its payment had been madeiHon. Geo. Ii.Sheppard - page 2 O-2740

"V.s the Comptrollerauthorized to issuewarrant in payment of this oertifioatoagainst tho appropriation originallymade for its payment? “3. This department should liko you alzo: (This does not i~nvol?ro a claim but applies to any ordinary claim.) to answer the following question, arising under the fee statutes,

"A situationhas arisen -here a valid claim, in due and legal form, was proserlted

to this department, in 1934, for payment against a proper appropriationmade for that year. For some reason, either from a misinterpretation of the statutes governing payment of the claim, or t'nat

it '~ia:~ withheldawaiting the outcome.ofpending litigatioye thatwould dstormino its Lwgality, or through.neg?igonco,the Comptroller failed to i,ssue a warrant at the ttilethe olaimwas presented. It is now admitted that the Comptroller should have i,ssued uvarmnt ;n payment of this claim upon presentment. Demand 'Is now made upon this department to issuewarrant in payment of GUS claim against the appropriationmads for same in 1934.
":s this department authorized to issue the warrent?" it-is the opinion of this department that each of your questions should be answerad in the affirmative. If the respective claimswere valid claims-- and it appears the Legi.slature

has so treated them -- and an appropriationwasmade for their payment, :7esee no reason why proper v:arraj?ts should not issue against such appropriation so long as it is available. The situation is not like the ordinary appropriationto care for an expense to he incurred during a fisoal period,which would, of course, lapse et ,the end of the fiscal period, if the sane'hadnot been expended, but rather it is the setting aside of a sum in payment of a spcoifio already performed, or other preexisting debt.

By. Ocie Spoer Assistant